The Secretary Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee PO Box 6100 Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600

Sent by Email to: [email protected]

CONTAMINATION OF FACILITIES

FROM THE USE OF FIRE FIGHTING FOAMS

Attached is my submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the above referred matter. My submission only addresses the contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown and the surrounding areas.

Yours faithfully

John Donahoo FIE(Aust)

MEDOWIE NSW 2318

14 December 2015

Attachment: Submission by John Donahoo

SUBMISSION BY JOHN DONAHOO

CONTAMINATION OF RAAF BASE WILLIAMTOWN AND SURROUNDING AREAS

BY AQUEOUS FILM FORMING FOAM (AFFF)

Introduction

If a natural disaster occurred in some faraway land that many Australians have never heard about, our Federal Government would be the first to chip in ten or twenty million dollars in relief funding. However, a situation has arisen where a Commonwealth made disaster has occurred here in our own backyard, and both our Federal and State Governments have yet to grab this problem by the throat and properly look after their own people.

In the past, the Federal Government has been quick to criticise insurance companies for being slow to approve insurance claims after natural disasters. In this case, as the Commonwealth carries its own insurance, and as they are clearly liable for compensation, then they should heed their own advice and commence negotiating properly and expeditiously with all affected landowners and leaseholders.

Normally a running commentary is not provided by government agencies when they are dealing with a problem. However, in this case where a very difficult problem has arisen, that is exactly what they should have done, and should be now doing. This way they take the people with them and seek out ideas and explain what may or may not work for environmental remediation of contaminated soil, groundwater and surface water.

Defence Obsfuscation and One-Liners

Obfuscation is defined as the obscuring of intended meaning in communication, making the message confusing, willfully ambiguous, or harder to understand. The people of lower Port Stephens have been subject to considerable obfuscation by Defence to date and examples include the following: a. Several years ago in response to a question at a community meeting, Defence advised that the Williamtown runway would not be extended to the northwest (This would drag ANEF lines closer to Raymond Terrace). At the next meeting they advised that such a proposal was now one option of many to be considered. The maximum possible runway extension to the northwest is now being constructed. b. The draft JSF EIS canvassed the option of extending the runway to the southeast as requested by the community and a map was provided in that document that showed that there would be little or no reduction to ANEFs over Raymond Terrace with that option. Clearly, moving the runway implied moving the Instrument Landing System (ILS) glide slope by the same distance because the glide slope location was the cause of the high ANEFs over Raymond Terrace. The only way the associated ANEF map that supported the above conclusion could have been produced was to assume the ILS glide slope remained in its current location. c. On November 17, 2015 the Newcastle Herald reported that a Defence Assistant Secretary when asked whether Defence was working to remove contaminated sediment from the base that was contaminating the run-off, said: ‘‘I do not believe we can because it is an operational air force base’’. This is an example of a Defence ‘one liner’ which is just not a credible statement and moreover, no reasons were provided for the statement. Moreover, Method of Work Plans (MOWP) are regularly prepared to enable extensive upgrade works to be performed at military airfields and civil throughout Australia, and there is no reason why such an MOWP could not be prepared for contamination works at Williamtown. The current runway extension works is a prime example. d. On October 26, the Newcastle Herald reported the following:

“THE Department of Defence repeatedly withheld damning information about the contamination threat posed by Williamtown RAAF base during its bid to have more than $1 billion worth of upgrade works approved. Documents obtained by the Newcastle Herald reveal Defence failed to disclose the chemical threat to three separate inquiries undertaken since 2014 by Federal Parliament’s standing committee on public works. It was also left out of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the F-35A Joint Strike Fighters to be based at Williamtown from 2018.

The federal Department of Environment approved the introduction of the jets in July and the contamination was made public in September.Toxic chemicals from the old fire-fighting foam were detected in surface and groundwater on and off the base in 2012.

Federal Newcastle MP and public works standing committee member Sharon Claydon said Defence ‘‘absolutely’’ had an obligation to disclose the contamination spread. She said it was crucial given the committee’s job of deliberating on the nationally-significant upgrade projects, worth more than $1.5 billion, for the introduction of the jets across numerous sites. ‘‘The committee is relying upon the evidence put before it and assuming that is in good faith,’’ she said. ‘‘When you find out otherwise there are questions to be asked.’’ Public works worth more than $15 million must be referred to the standing committee. In all three inquiries, the contamination was not detailed in Defence’s lengthy submissions, instead glossed over in one line. Ms Claydon said she felt ‘‘extreme disappointment’’ at the ‘‘very cursory reference’’. ‘‘That clearly needs to be front and centre of considerations of all contemporary and future works [at the base],’’ she said.

The NSW Environment Protection Authority, which has no power over Defence land, said plans to install a 10,000 litre underground diesel tank at Williamtown was of ‘‘particular interest’’. An EPA spokeswoman confirmed it was ‘‘aware” of the potential for the works to cause “further offsite impacts’’ and had ‘‘requested’’ an inspection. Defence staff will be grilled about the contamination at another standing committee hearing in Canberra on Friday.

Former Williamtown base commander John Donahoo said Defence's silence in the strike fighter EIS about the chemical spread amounted to "trying to pull the wool over the community's eyes". A spokeswoman for the Department of Environment said the flying operations of the jets would have no impact on water.

Concerns aired over JSF upgrade works

RESIDENTS want major upgrade works at Williamtown RAAF Base stopped until the contamination threat is “properly examined”. Williamtown and Surrounds Residents Action Group head Cain Gorfine said major earthworks were taking place on a heavily contaminated site, which was a serious concern for neighbours. “They are digging right in the heart of the contamination zone and there is no regulatory body overseeing it,” he said. “We have no confidence that Defence, as the polluter, is doing the right thing.”

Detailed Defence submissions to three inquiries held by Federal Parliament’s standing committee on public works reveal the contamination was revealed as a one-line item on each occasion. The first inquiry, held in 2014, examined the proposed facilities for the new Joint Strike Fighter jets. It was told that ‘‘low levels of sub-surface contaminants have been identified in the area of the proposed F-35A Operational Precinct’’. The second inquiry, which endorsed a $274 million upgrade at Williamtown, was advised that changes to stormwater drains would provide ‘‘environmental best practice in relation to... Aqueous Film Forming Foam discharge management’’.

The third and current inquiry, into a $409 million upgrade of air traffic systems and infrastructure at multiple bases, was told in September of ‘‘potential contamination’’ from the foam at RAAF bases Darwin, Townsville, Amberley, Williamtown, Pearce, at RAAF Gingin and the Army Aviation Centre at Oakey.

This advice was given the same month NSW agencies banned recreation and commercial fishing at Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cove and warned residents living near the base to stop drinking bore water.” e. Leonard O'Connell's rural property at Nelson Bay Road, Salt Ash has been subject to inundation by floodwaters from Moors drain since about 1990. He believes that this has been caused by the progressive development at RAAF Base Williamtown since 1940. His situation could be exacerbated by further proposed base development. To assess the drainage problems at Williamtown, Defence were requested last August via a submission to the Parliamentary Works Committee (PWC) to undertake a hydrology study to determine if augmentation of drainage is required as a result of existing and proposed development at RAAF Base Williamtown. The Defence one line response contained in the PWC report was that the Stage 2 Base Redevelopment did not increase the drainage flow from the base. Well that may be so as that project does not include the extensive aircraft pavement works as they are part of a separate project, but a responsible neighbour would properly address the issue raised and not just fob people off. More likely than not, Base development since 1940 has increased the drainage volumetric flow rate and the total volume of water discharged into Moors Drain and this could be the reason for frequent flooding at Leonard’s family property. f. The F-35A EIS process was a disappointment, as many issues raised were not addressed. Defence are spending money to reduce noise to their personnel but are reluctant to spend money to reduce noise off base. Much of the proposed Defence Development costing hundreds of millions of dollars moves the existing working accommodation to the north away from future F-35A aircraft noise. However, Defence seems not prepared to spend any money to reduce noise to local residents. This is hypocritical. There are some actions they can take and these are listed at Annex A. An issue of great concern is the increase of noise levels inside many hundreds of Port Stephens houses of 8 to 12 dBA, a fact not mentioned in the draft EIS. East Medowie will be particularly hard hit by noise increases from planned F-35A activities at Salt Ash Air Weapons Range. Despite requests to Defence via the EIS process, they appear most reluctant to provide basic noise information detailed at Annex A. This is Australia, and people who are going to be subjected to aircraft noise have a right to be provided with all available information. If Defence do not provide this information, then their reluctance creates suspicion that they are hiding something. g. In late 2014, the community was advised at a Williamtown Advisory Group meeting that as a result of matters raised in the submissions to the JSF draft EIS, civil aircraft would have to follow the same noise abatement rules as military aircraft arriving and departing from Williamtown. Consequently, they were banned from flying over Medowie after take-off. In an early 2015 meeting, the Group was shown a map depicting how civil aircraft had complied with the new rules, albeit with a few recalcitrants. Later, a large increase in civil movements over Medowie during the day was noted and this matter was raised at the next meeting. The response was that the times for restrictions had been changed to 6.00 am to 8.00 am only. Therefore, we were told one thing and then without any consultation, changes to the noise abatement rules were made. In this day and age, new flight paths over residential areas should not occur without good reason. Apparently, when civil aircraft take off on Runway 30 they may save a small amount of fuel, and a few seconds in flight time if they fly over Medowie in lieu of over Lake Grahamstown on their way to Brisbane.

Proposed Action Plan

Public distrust of Defence is currently so great as a result of their obfuscation, some of which is outlined in the foregoing, that if they were to perform any future role in managing the contamination and compensation, the public would view this action as akin to giving the fox the key to the henhouse.

Liability for the contamination is not an issue. It clearly resides with the Commonwealth, and it is therefore liable for all contamination related costs incurred and damages suffered by the State, and any affected landowners and leaseholders. Doing nothing is not an option, as this will only increase the final bill to the taxpayer who will have to pay for considerable unnecessary legal costs if affected persons have to fight the Commonwealth through the courts, and for the daily increasing business losses for those using their land to derive income. Moreover, it is better for all compensation to go to affected residents than have about a third of it go to a litigation funding company.

The contamination problem will not go away and health standards tend to become more stringent over time and not less so. As a matter of some urgency, the Australian Government should now establish an appropriately qualified team outside of Defence, to deal with compensation and voluntary land acquisition of affected land. Acquisition of this land has the added benefit of increasing the aircraft noise buffer zone around the Williamtown airfield. Annex B refers to the need for buffer zones adjacent to Defence airfields. Whether affected residents stay or leave is a matter for them. However, their health and wellbeing and that of their animals can only be guaranteed if they voluntarily relocate as soon as possible at Commonwealth expense. The longer the Commonwealth procrastinates, the greater the toll on the mental health of affected residents.

A problem in our society cannot be solved until a government organisation is assigned the task to manage that problem to achieve specific objectives. It seems that the legal responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the State on the Williamtown contamination problem are unclear. Therefore, to obtain clarity, a Commonwealth - State Agreement needs to be drafted and signed by both parties ASAP.

The Williamtown contamination problem will require several years of management, and will cost at least hundreds of millions, and possibly a billion or more dollars in damages to the local economy, for compensation and for remedial works, thereby justifying a separate State Statutory Authority. The continuing use of the State EPA as the lead agency for the management of this problem is inappropriate as they are a Regulatory Authority and do not possess the necessary engineering problem solving and construction project management skills. Moreover, they will need to endorse any proposed management actions and remediation works, and therefore they would have a conflict of interest as they would be seen as endorsing their own proposals.

Commonwealth - State Agreement

The following draft Heads of Agreement for a proposed Commonwealth - State Agreement are proposed for consideration by both governments: a. The Commonwealth and the State agree that the State shall manage all aspects of the Williamtown Contamination problem, including the project management of any environmental remediation works, provided the State seeks Commonwealth agreement before undertaking any such works on Commonwealth land. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commonwealth is to deal directly with landowners, leaseholders and business owners on all compensation matters. b. The Commonwealth has caused the contamination problem, and therefore it is liable for the payment of all reasonable costs for the following:

1) Compensation for losses incurred by affected landowners, leaseholders and business owners.

2) State administration, engineering studies, design, and for appropriate environmental remediation works. c. The State shall establish a body to take charge of the management of the contamination problem in coordination with other affected State entities and the Commonwealth. Therefore, the State shall provide appropriate staffing and funding to either the Hunter Water Corporation, a government Department or other Agency, for an Office, which is solely focused on managing all aspects of the contamination problem. After suitable legislation is passed, that Office is to become a Statutory Authority. The role of the Office/Statutory Authority is to include inter alia, the following:

1) Provide a local office for affected residents to seek advice and assistance and provide regular forums where affected residents can advise their needs.

2) Request the Commonwealth to provide fair and just ongoing financial relief to affected residents whose livelihoods have been affected and assist with their work transition where required.

3) Perform all water and soil testing as required and to provide ongoing health advice to residents and also to them for their animals.

4) Provide assistance to landowners, leaseholders and business owners to prepare their financial claims on the Commonwealth for damages incurred.

5) Provide assistance to landowners and leaseholders to help them deal with the Commonwealth on any proposed voluntary acquisitions.

6) Perform engineering studies to ascertain the methodology and costs for ground water containment, rainfall runoff management and possible groundwater, surface water and soil treatment management.

7) Implement engineering works to eradicate the contamination problem, and/or to contain it as appropriate with possibly a bentonite clay wall, or two rows of sheet piling with a concrete infill over many kilometres. Install a surface runoff water barrier to contain the contamination and prevent propagation.

8) Coordinate the activities of other State agencies as required, and liaise with the Commonwealth on all matters associated with the Williamtown contamination problem.

9) Obtain State EPA clearance as required by Acts administered by the EPA which are listed below:

Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Act 2008 Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1985 Forestry Act 2012 Note: The EPA administers Parts 5A and 5B of this Act and the remainder is administered by the Minister for Primary Industries National Environment Protection Council (New South Wales) Act 1995 Ozone Protection Act 1989 Pesticides Act 1999 Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 Radiation Control Act 1990 Recreation Vehicles Act 1983 Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 d. The Commonwealth is to establish an appropriately qualified team, independent of Defence to deal with compensation to landowners and leaseholders, and for any proposed voluntary acquisition of affected land. The Commonwealth specifically acknowledges that the State will do all necessary studies to develop possible engineering solutions to the contamination problem and that the State will seek reasonable reimbursement from the Commonwealth for the cost of these studies and for any consequential environmental remediation works. e. Disputes are to be resolved by agreement between the Prime Minister and the Premier or their nominated representatives. f. The Commonwealth and the State are to appoint respective Principal Representatives who are to work together to implement this agreement.

Funding Source for Compensation

The funding required for the resolution of the Williamtown contamination problem may amount to a billion or more dollars. Our Treasurer recently stated that this country has an expenditure problem and not a revenue problem, and therefore in Australia’s current fiscal circumstances, that funding must be found from savings. Our Defence Force size has shrunk since the mid 1990s, but in that time the number of Deputy Secretaries in the Defence Department has increased from three to six. If that number reverted to three, then a savings of about $2.0m per annum could be saved by that change alone. Moreover, if the number of First Assistant Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries were reduced to the early 1990s levels, then considerably more savings could be achieved. Rather than stop there, a Defence organisational review should be conducted which inter alia, gives back to the three service chiefs the responsibilities that they had in the early 1990s. The Australian people assume that their three service chiefs have sole authority to raise, train and maintain our Navy, our Army and our Air Force respectively. This is not the case and since the 1990s, the Defence public service bureaucracy has considerably swelled in size some years after it took over tasks previously the responsibility of each service chief. Therefore, the three services cannot be as responsive as they were previously. Each of the three services is a large complex organisation and to expeditiously perform its roles, each needs the organic support capability that each controlled in the early 1990s.

Legal Cover for Compensation

Voluntary acquisition can be dealt with fairly through the Commonwealth Land Acquisition Act, 1989. However, the Commonwealth should not subject affected residents to the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) scheme for all other claims. Defence takes years to consider such applications and the outcome is usually the offer of a paltry sum. Therefore, the alternative method for approval of compensation for claims for lost income and other damages may need to be used, and that is to seek Cabinet approval for ex-gratia payments. An administrative mechanism would need to be established to ensure that such claims are dealt with expeditiously.

Recommendations

Recommendations are as follows: a. The Commonwealth to introduce a voluntary land acquisition scheme for affected Williamtown landowners and leaseholders, and to establish a Compensation Team outside of Defence to deal with all compensation matters. b. The Commonwealth and the State to conclude a Commonwealth - State Agreement as outlined in the foregoing. c. The Government to change the Defence culture from one of secrecy and obfuscation, to one of openness and accountability. d. The Government to reorganise Defence to reduce staff over several years to provide the necessary funds for voluntary land acquisition, compensation and environmental remediation. e. The Commonwealth and the State to provide regular briefing sessions for affected residents to advise on progress on health, compensation and remediation issues, and not ‘drop-in sessions’ where questions cannot be asked in public and where affected residents are passed from one agency to another without having their questions answered. f. Defence be directed to address the aircraft noise issues that were not properly covered in the final JSF EIS.

John Donahoo FIE(Aust)

Annexes:

A. Proposed Actions to Reduce Aircraft Noise in Port Stephens

B. Ultimate ANEF, Buffer Zones & Land Acquisition

ANNEX A

PROPOSED ACTIONS TO REDUCE AIRCRAFT NOISE IN PORT STEPHENS

A1 Provide a precision approach system to Runway 30 (approach from the sea) to reduce the Instrument Landing System (ILS) noise events over Raymond Terrace by about 60%. Three options for this system have been advised to Defence for their consideration. (Includes ILS, GBAS and RNP 0.3) Recent advice from Minister Andrews that there would be little benefit from such a system is inconsistent with published proposed runway usage for the F-35A which is split 52% / 48% in favour of Runway 12. Currently, 100% of aircraft requiring a precision approach system use Runway 12, as it is the only one available. If a precision approach system was in place on Runway 30and nominated for preferred usage, and for F-35A aircraft operating at tailwinds as prescribed by the aircraft manual, then the precision approach runway usage split could change from 0% / 100% to 60% / 40% in favour of Runway 30. The foregoing proposal would reduce the incidence, but not the intensity of noise over Raymond Terrace, and in particular at Riverview Ridge and Lakeside.

A2 The intensity of noise over Raymond Terrace can be reduced by about 2.5 dBA if Defence increases the Glide Path angle for the ILS from 3 to 3.5 degrees as allowed by ICAO, and maintains the existing Glide Slope apparatus location. Defence have provided no adequate reasons for not adopting these measures.

A3 The aircraft noise over houses at Fullerton Cove, Salt Ash, East Medowie, Campvale and other locations will increase with the advent of the F-35A to the extent that land acquisition may have to be considered. Information from the Defence advice to the Port Stephens Council attached at Appendix 1 shows that noise inside houses of typical construction will increase by about 8 to12 dBA when the Hornet is replaced by the F-35A. This represents a doubling of loudness to the human ear. About half of the increase is due to higher external F-35A noise, and the other half is due to typical construction components being less able to attenuate F-35A noise compared with Hornet noise. The Port Stephens Council has recently formally advised that Appendix 1 is the latest information they have received from Defence.

A4 The Aircraft Noise Level (ANL) in dBA is the noise metric that AS 2021 specifies as the external noise level that is to be used for the design of aircraft noise attenuation for buildings. Defence have provided via the ANO, the ANL Tables for the Hornet but they have not yet provided the ANL Tables for the F-35A. Air Services Australia have met their responsibilities in providing ANL Tables for civil aircraft as required by and included in AS 2021. However, Defence have not met their responsibilities under that standard.

A5 Defence should also prepare an Aircraft Noise Level (ANL) contour map in 5 dBA increments overlaid with ANEF lines for the Port Stephens area. The provision of a single map would show residential land developers and prospective purchasers of residential land, the ANL to be used for the design of house noise attenuation in 20 to 25 ANEF zones. It would also show the high ANL levels outside of the 20 ANEF lines. Typical house construction with doors and windows closed provides noise attenuation of about 20 dBA. The cost to achieve noise attenuation above this level is about $3500 per dBA. Therefore, where a total noise attenuation of 40 dBA is required, the extra building cost is about $70,000. At 45 dBA and above, the cost spirals upwards as a house would then need to be built as a concrete bunker. This known extra cost will deter residential land purchasers, and as a consequence, developers will be less inclined to develop residential estates in 20-25 ANEF zones. Clearly, this would be in the best interest of Defence. However, this will only occur if developers know that consumers are likely to be aware of this information. Unfortunately, the information is currently difficult to obtain. The Defence response may be to use their Transparent Noise Information Package (TNIP), but that program is not easy to use and understand. Therefore, Defence has a duty of care to present ANL data in an easy to understand format for prospective residential land purchasers. No other agency can provide this information.

Appendix:

1. PDF File - Defence Letter to Port Stephens Council of 30 April 2010 ANNEX B

ULTIMATE ANEF, BUFFER ZONES & LAND ACQUISITION

B1 The value of all Defence equipment gradually depreciates over time until each item is only worth its scrap value. Conversely, land appreciates with CPI or better with time, and each year, the sale of surplus land is included in the revenue component of the Defence Budget. Land purchase adjacent to Defence establishments is a strategically sensible approach that protects them from many forms of encroachment and provides for flexibility in future use.

There is anecdotal evidence that in the late 1960s, the then Department of Civil Aviation wanted to purchase large tracts of land adjacent to Tullermarine to serve as a buffer zone to prevent urban encroachment. Apparently, the Treasury bureaucrats did not agree and the proposal did not proceed. Today, there is considerable urban encroachment and that proposed acquisition would today be seen as a lost opportunity.

Understandably, governments are careful not to set precedents in land acquisitions at military airfields, as some would then argue that the same should apply at civil airports. However, there are some differences between them. The cost of acquiring land to say the 25 ANEF at Sydney, Melbourne and other capital city Airports would be prohibitively expensive. However, RAAF Bases Williamtown and Amberley are unique. While civil airports have low noise levels and high average daily aircraft movements, the afore-mentioned RAAF airfields have high noise levels and medium average aircraft movements. Moreover, the cost of acquiring available relatively undeveloped land would be more affordable.

If it was not for the natural buffer land provided by the Pacific Ocean, the sand hills, crown land including the NPWS owned Tomago sand beds, State Forestry land and Hunter Water land including Lake Grahamstown; RAAF Base Williamtown may have been forced to close decades ago from adjacent incompatible development. Defence does not appear to have a policy on buffer land acquisition adjacent to its airfields, but it does have a practice of buying land to the 20 or 25 ANEF in the development of new airfields, and the re-development of an existing airfield. The impetus for buying about 25,000 hectares of land in the early 1980s for the new airfield at RAAF Base Curtin arose from the noise complaints received from Salt Ash residents over Mirage fighters using the Salt Ash Air Weapons Range. A few visionary senior RAAF officers decided that this would not happen with future airfields. This practice was again followed when RAAF Base Tindal was redeveloped in the mid to late 1980s. The land holdings were increased from about 1,000 hectares to about 40,000 hectares. When RAAF Base Scherger was developed in the mid 1990s, a core land area of 5,000 hectares was acquired, and a buffer land area of 8,000 hectares was leased for 198 years. More land would have been acquired or leased but it was not available. As a major re-development of Williamtown is currently planned and is similar in scope to the Tindal development in the 1980s, consistency in approach dictates that the current area of about 1,200 hectares be considerably increased. Defence should establish a Buffer Land Policy. That policy should include acquiring more buffer land at other RAAF establishments. This should occur firstly at RAAF Bases Amberley and Learmonth; and then at RAAF Bases Pearce, East Sale and Nowra. RAAF Bases Darwin, Townsville and Edinburgh are built out and little if any land is available at a reasonable price. However, the SA State government seems to be more supportive of applying AS 2021 that the NSW State government, and this is positive for Edinburgh.

Our Constitution effectively states at Section 51 xxxi that: the Parliament shall have power to make laws with respect to the acquisition of property on just terms. The current legal view seems to be that imposing an ANEF over someone’s property, even after they have lived there for 20 or more years is not deemed to be an acquisition of an interest in land, and therefore no compensation is payable. However, something is being taken from the landowner, and this includes the right of free enjoyment of the land, property devaluation and the stigma of land being included in an ANEF zone. While currently, there may not be a legal argument for compensation, or for voluntary land acquisition, there is a strong moral case for such action, as in this era, the government should not be treating its citizens in such a shabby way.

Residents and the Port Stephens Council see ANEF contour lines as ‘walls of stone’, but Defence sees them as lines on a drawing that they can change every 10 years or less. Defence should issue an Ultimate ANEF Map as has occurred at to provide certainty for Land Use Planning in Port Stephens. Defence should agree to acquire land from home owners who are adversely affected by this Ultimate ANEF based on a yet to be agreed ANEF issue time reference in the ANEF Constraints Map recently produced with Port Stephens Council assistance.

B2 Each generation of fighter seems to be noisier that the previous one. The US Air Force and the US Navy are currently developing 6th generation fighter aircraft with prototypes expected to fly in the mid to late 2020s. To provide for future development options, it is strategically prudent to acquire land now while it is available and relatively cheap. Defence should keep abreast of these developments to ascertain if they need to provide a future runway closer to the sea at Williamtown for future noise abatement purposes. Defence should develop a master plan that deals with these matters.

B3 In this current era, surely it is unacceptable for the Commonwealth to be inflicting homeowners at Salt Ash and possibly elsewhere with 105 dBA noise levels. Defence should commence a voluntary land acquisition program that in the first instance allows for buying properties from severely noise affected residents in Salt Ash, Fullerton Cove and adjacent areas. Defence should institute a 30 year plan to acquire non-Crown Buffer Land to include: all Explosive Ordnance (EO) Purple Lines as defined in the NATO EO Safety Principles; all land affected in the zero and 7.5 metre building height restriction zone as mandated by the proposed changes to the Defence (Areas Control) Regulations to include Williamtown; selected land in the North West Approach to the Salt Ash Air Weapons Range; all land to the 30 ANEF where practicable, and land to the 25 ANEF on an opportunity basis. Defence should seek a binding agreement with the State to ensure that Defence have first right of refusal of any crown land proposed for sale in a noise affected zone.

B4 Defence should initiate the development of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State that covers the Lower Port Stephens Aviation Zone where the State agrees to prevent development that is non-compliant with AS 2021, and Defence agrees to a plan of land acquisition of Buffer Zones over time as outlined above.